The Implicit Rules of Combat

Abstract

Conspecific violence has been pervasive throughout evolutionary history. The current research tested the hypotheses that individuals implicitly categorize combative contexts (i.e., play fighting, status contests, warfare, and anti-exploitative violence) and use the associated contextual information to guide expectations of combative tactics. Using U.S. and non-U.S. samples, Study 1 demonstrated consistent classification of combative contexts from scenarios for which little information was given and predictable shifts in the acceptability of combative tactics across contexts. Whereas severe tactics (e.g., eye-gouging) were acceptable in warfare and anti-exploitative violence, they were unacceptable in status contests and play fights. These results suggest the existence of implicit rules governing the contexts of combat. In Study 2, we explored the reputational consequences of violating these implicit rules. Results suggest that rule violators (e.g., those who use severe tactics in a status contest) are given less respect. These are the first studies to implicate specialized mechanisms for aggression that use contextual cues of violence to guide expectations and behavior.

Post-Fight Respect Signals Valuations of Opponent’s Fighting Performance

“…Events leading to combat include steady escalations that mirror nonhuman escalations of combat (Clutton-Brock, Albon, & Gibson, 1979; Payne, 1998). The social acceptability of fight tactics is uniform across cultures (Romero, Pham, & Goetz, 2014). In fact, individuals often “cordially” desist fighting in line with apparent cost–benefit analyses associated with continuing versus desisting the fight (Sell, 2011), such as detecting key indicators of an opponent’s defeat (e.g., postural submission into fetal position, lying motionless).…”

“…If post-fight respect signals recognition of a praiseworthy fighting performance, then “dirty” fight tactics (e.g., punching an opponent’s testicles) should not elicit post-fight respect, regardless of whether a combatant is victorious. Combative fights—unlike lethal conflicts (e.g., war)—have implicit rules that permit combatants to honestly signal their formidability (Romero et al, 2014). Performing dirty fight tactics violates these implicit rules, thereby preventing opportunities to honestly signal formidability.…”

Honest Signaling

“…Samesex competition, like mate choice, also involves signaling (e.g., Jones et al 2010;McAndrew 2009;Sell et al 2009), and can lead to interpersonal conflict and physical aggression (Archer 2009). Recognizing what these signals are and knowing how to more effectively, and perhaps respectfully (e.g., Romero et al 2014), navigate them could also promote winwin exchanges within same-sex relationships, perhaps particularly within the realm of competition for mates. Moreover, this has the potential to further increase an individual's mate value (i.e., social proof; chapter 11) by virtue of closer, more expansive same-sex friendship networks.…”

Punching Faces and Publishing Papers: a Review of Jonathan Gottschall’s The Professor in the Cage: Why Men Fight and Why We Like to Watch

“…It is no coincidence that many MMA organizations across several cultures forbid punches to the groin or throat. Humans abide by what Romero et al (2014) term "the implicit rules of combat." Humans categorize the context of a fight (e.g., play fighting, status contest, warfare, anti-exploitative), and each context is associated with a different set of acceptable and respectable combative tactics.…”